CW 566 - The Rich Don't Pay Tax or Do They?, Flat, Fair or Sales Tax with John Gaver

This show is produced by the Hartman Media Company.

For more information and links to all.

Our great podcasts, visit hartmanmedia.com.

Welcome to the Creating wealth show with Jason Hartman. You're about to learn a new slant on investing, some exciting techniques and fresh new approaches to the world's most historically proven asset class that will enable you to create more wealth and freedom than you ever thought possible. Jason is a genuine, self made multimillionaire who's actually been there and done it. He's a successful investor, lender, developer and entrepreneur who's owned properties in 11 states, had hundreds of tenants, and been involved in thousands of real estate transactions. This program will help you follow in Jason's footsteps on the road to your Financial Independence Day. You really can do it. And now, here's your host, Jason Hartman with the complete solution for real estate investors.

Hey, welcome to the Creating Wealth Show. Episode 566. 566. Thank you so much for joining me. I'm your host Jason Hartman and today we're going to talk with John Gaver. We're going to talk about the rich don't pay tax or do they? This is an age old debate. It sure is. You know, should they pay taxes proportionate to their income? Should they pay a fixed amount? Should the tax be progressive? And I call that regressive, actually, because it taxes people earning more, taxes them at higher rates. I mean, how crazy is that? If it were just a flat percentage, a flat tax, which by the way, I'm in favor of the Steve Forbes era tax idea that never got any traction because the media basically wouldn't cover them. Of course we had Steve on the show previously. Check out that episode in the archives. But you know, it punishes people for earning more. But then you have people say, well, let's not have an income tax at all. Let's only have a national sales tax because that's easier to monitor. There would be less fraud, there would be less corruption and it would be so simple. I mean, what would the CPA industry do? Well, actually, instead of defending us against our own government, maybe they would go out and, and they would spend their skills and their knowledge and their time helping people and companies increase their cash flow and do some great stuff that would be a better use for our CPA friends, I think, than fighting with our government. So, you know, this is obviously an age old debate. It won't be solved on this show. But I tell you, I went and I did the calculations after this guest interview and it was pretty interesting to see. You know, as a consumption oriented tax, a sales tax, what my tax liability would be versus what I do now. But then again, you lead to another big economic problem. And when we've talked about the inflation deflation debate and the concept of the velocity of money, that's a critical concept, velocity of money, maybe economic. If it was a higher sales tax, that would incentivize people not to spend because they'd be punished for spending and they would just hoard their money. Now, hoarding money really ain't so bad ultimately, because what does that mean? Well, if you're hoarding, you're a saver and you're creating capital formation. And the ridiculous argument by so many people is that the people who have all this money and Obama, by the way, candidate Obama a long time ago did allude to this idea of having an asset tax, so literally just taxing people not on what they earn. Well, in addition to what they earn, of course, you'd also tax them that way, but tax them on the assets they own. Now that's an incentive not to have assets or not to have onshore assets. So you'd see a lot of that, that go offshore and all of that. So, you know, it's just this, these are obviously very complex issues, but there is a famous TED talk and it's this venture capitalist, I think, I can't remember the guy's name. You may have seen this talk I'm referring to where he says, you know, he's talking about how the rich don't consume that much and they don't pay that much in tax. But what, he completely fails to mention that literally just by being wealthy by that, by virtue of being wealthy, whether they want to or not, they are creating capital formation. And that capital is never really dormant. Now, you know, if it's stuck under someone's mattress, I guess it would be, but it's never really dormant in real life. They either save it and it's in the bank. So that creates capital formation that banks can lend against. And you know, with fractional reserve banking, which is a, you know, one of the epic scams perpetrated on society, but with that money is lent into existence, so it increases the money supply, for better or worse. I don't, I don't love that idea by any means, but just by virtue of having money in the bank, you are increasing the size of the economy. Okay. And I think that's a valid argument. Certainly by having money in real estate or stocks, even though, you know, hopefully you're not keeping them in stocks. But creating that capital formation, you're allowing people to rent homes, you're encouraging development of new homes, development of new office spaces, you're creating supply that they can, people can run their businesses in these facilities. Maybe industrial properties, retail properties, whatever it is. You know, this money is never dormant. So the people that have that idea are just plain wrong. Not good. How do you like that sound effects? First time I've ever done that cheesy thing. But yeah, so it's an interesting age old debate. And by the way, we have got some great shows coming up for you. Yesterday I interviewed one of the vice presidents of Realty Track with some great insights on the different markets around the country, some legislative and political issues. And that interview will be coming up soon. We've got a market profile on Orlando, Florida coming up and look for a property tour probably in Orlando, possibly coming up in the near future, the not too distant future. And also I'm very excited to announce that we do have a good website up to answer so many of your questions. A new website@venturealliancemastermind.com I know that's a kind of a long domain name but it's venture alliancemastermind.com and this will answer many, many of the repeated questions I've been bombarded with about the Venture alliance and about our upcoming Newport, Rhode island trip and Providence, Rhode island trip and our side trip to Martha's Vineyard. Hope you can join us for that. It's a very short time away but any of you last minute people, heck jump on a plane if you're on the east coast and near those locations, get in your car, come over and join us. It's going to be an awesome weekend. You don't have to commit to joining the Venture alliance. You can just come as a one time guest. So that's always available to you. We've got some good speakers lined up, some great guests and it's just going to be a phenomenal experience, a really, really first class experience. VentureAllianceMasterMind.com and also@JasonHartman.com our main website, look at some of the properties we've got in some of our newer markets in Jacksonville and in Orlando. I think you'll be very impressed with them. So check that out. And without further ado, let's get to our guest. It's my pleasure to welcome John Gaver to the show. He is editor and publisher of the popular webzine Action America. And one of his books that we're going to focus on today is entitled the Rich Don't Pay tax or do they? Who really pays income tax? Why is it problematic, and how do we deal with it? John, welcome. How are you?

Oh, I'm doing marvelous. I'm sure I'll get better, though.

Good. Where are you located?

I'm in Houston, Texas.

Fantastic. So there's long been a class envy war going on, especially in the current administration, as to who is really paying the tax. Some say the rich are getting away with murder and they're not paying. And others say the rich are paying more than their fair share. What's the truth?

Well, according to the irs, the IRS releases their collections data every year. The most recent data shows that the top 1% of taxpayers earn 21.86% of all income earned, but they pay 38.09% of all taxes paid. And that's actual collections. So that's after deductions, exemptions, credits, and what deduction adjustments after you take all that in. In fact, even after all cheating, this is what the IRS actually collected and put the US Treasury. So that's 1.74 times their share based on income. On the other hand, the bottom 50% earn 11% of the income. 11.1%. And they pay just 2.78% of the taxes. So that's one quarter their share based on income. So you take that quarter, that'll go into one and three quarters. Five. Five. I'm sorry, seven times. That means a seven times ratio. I think it's great that the poor shouldn't have to pay as much, but I think a seven times ratio is just way out of bounds.

So the rich are paying too much then?

Definitely. And moreover, the rich are leaving the United States at the highest rate in human history. Since Barack Obama took office, we've seen a 2,300% increase in the number of formal renunciations of what they call covered expatriates. Now, to be a covered expatriate, you have to have a net worth of $2 million or have had a tax liability for each of the last five years in excess of $160,000. That basically puts most of those people in the top six tenths of a percent of taxpayers.

I just want to be kind of reasonable about this. I mean, I've looked at the renunciation issue too. And when you talk about renunciations of citizenship and leaving the country, even though that number has increased quite dramatically, actually on a statistical basis, it's still a really small number. I mean, overall. Right?

Well, it is a small number until you look at it. I charted the thing, I put it on a graph and you watch that curve going up. And I'm a mathematics type of guy. So I did a projection using a polynomial trend line with a five year trend. And doing that projection, we're looking at where we could be seeing some serious problems by 2016.

Hey, I don't remember what polynomial means. What's that mean?

It's a polynomial equation. It's a type of equation. But a polynomial trend line with a five year spread is generally accepted to be a fair predictor if you're trying to push a curve forward. And I use five years because of Obama's having been in office at the time. I did that projection for five years. So we're not affecting it by Bush or anything before that.

Okay, so this is the thing that, you know, the, the people on the left just don't realize. I mean, I have my complaints about both sides, of course, but. But on the left, you know, they just think you can just tax people forever. You can regulate them to death and they're just gonna stick around and take it. And what the reality is, they vote with their feet, they leave. Now, we've certainly seen this at a state level. I mean, look at the poster child for big government disaster. That's Michigan, okay? Especially Detroit. I was just there doing a property tour just a few days ago actually, and looking at investments there. And I tell you, I wouldn't necessarily think that would be a good place to invest. I mean, you know, when the population is declining, you can't fix that, you know.

No, and that's. Well, California has seen a lot of decline for similar reasons.

We, and I have called years ago. I said it maybe seven, eight years ago, maybe even more. I said on, on, on my show, I said, california is the new Michigan. Now, I don't know though, you know, I was really right about that for a while. But, you know, they have a lot of ways of manipulating the numbers and hiding the bad. But I don't know, California seems like it's coming along a little better maybe. Maybe I'm wrong about that. I don't know.

Well, yeah, I don't know how they're doing it as far as actually taking the numbers. I know that here in Texas we're seeing a lot of people from California. We used to talk about the snowbirds from Michigan. Now we're talking about the, you know, Californians coming into Texas because we still have jobs.

You know what you can call those? We won't call them snowbirds. We'll call them socialist Refugee birds. How's that?

Sounds pretty good.

You know, I call California, by the way, I live in La Jolla, California. I call California California, the Socialist Republic of California, which is pretty accurate description.

I've heard that. I've heard that numerous times. I try not to, to be too derogatory towards anybody, but. Because, you know, everybody has their problems. I mean, hey, Texas has Oklahoma next to us, so we have to deal with. No kidding.

The rivalry. The sports rivalry. Yeah. Okay, well, so, so what else? Let's kind of drill down on this issue and talk about, you know, what really is going on with tax policy and what we can do on an individual and a national basis to fix it.

Well, what we hear now is we hear people running for Congress, the Senate, and the presidency all saying, oh, we have to implement some sort of serious tax reform. But more often than not, and not every case, more often than not, it takes the form of a flat income tax. And that just doesn't make sense because the line that you hear is something along the lines of we need to pass a flat income tax so we can abolish the IRS and send our tax returns in on a postcard. But you can't have an income tax and even seriously reduce the size of the irs. Think about this. Under any form of income tax, both HR 1824 and HR 1040, flat income, they're both flat income tax bills in Congress today. Those are going to be the subject of my next book, those two and the Fair Tax, we're comparing them, but both of those bills implement a tax at 17%. One is a optional tax. You can opt into it, but you can't opt out. But they both are pretty similar, similar deductions and everything. But the problem with these is that they both still tax 158 million taxpayers. Now, if you're going to reduce a type of crime, you have to either reduce the opportunities or reduce the ways in which that crime is committed. Well, you've got 158 million taxpayers, and under an income tax, it takes only one person to commit tax fraud. So Therefore, you've got 158 million opportunities for tax fraud under either a flat income tax or a progressive income tax. Then you look at the tax gap. Well, we have a tax gap today, according to the IRS, of $450 billion. The things that a flat income tax gets rid of are adjustments, deductions, exemptions, and credits. Those things make up just 45 billion of that 450 billion. The rest of it is underreporting. We're looking at underreporting of personal business income. Underreporting of personal income under personal business income underreporting is $122 billion. Corporate income tax underreporting $67 billion. There's a $28 billion non filing gap. I mean, all of these other things are going to remain the same. The only things that a flat income tax does is get rid of adjustments, deductions, exemptions and credits which make up all your tax shelters. But that's only going to, only going to occur for a couple of years. Ronald Reagan got us down from a 70% tax rate to a top rate of 28% and two tax brackets from when he came in, it was 16 then 1988 was the first year since 1913 that we got down to two brackets. In 1989, Reagan left office and in 1990 we got a third tax bracket at 31%.

Of course, you've probably seen the thing that floats around social media and so forth about how the tax brackets have just gone down, down, down, taxes have gone down. But that's certainly not the whole picture. I mean, it's not even close because, you know, so you take the Reagan act, right? I mean, the, the tax rate may have gone down, but a lot of these, and I believe they were silly deductions went away. I mean, you used to have, before the Reagan reform, you had, you know, back when doctors used to be wealthy. You know, you, you know, it's not even a big deal to be a doctor anymore. It used to be like a big deal, right?

Used to be my son, the doctor, you know, now it's like, oh, I.

Want my daughter to marry a doctor, you know, all that kind of stuff. But that doesn't really exist so much anymore, especially in the future of medicine. It really won't exist if we have Obama have his way. But, you know, a lot of these, like silly investment schemes in windmills and things like that. Oh, it's kind of renaissance. But anyway, but, but a long time ago, you know, none of these things had any real economic validity. And oddly, I'm not even sure they do now with advanced technology back then and all those deductions like dried up. So it's not really about the marginal tax rate, it's about the deductions and, you know, a whole bunch of other things. I mean, John, you can't really evaluate it based on tax brackets, can you?

Not really. That's why I went to the IRS data in my book and looked at actually what they collect from different groups. And when you look at that now you see how much this group, what percentage of total income is earned by the top 1%, top 5%, top 10%, so on. And then you see what percentage of total collections comes from each one of those groups. Now you can get a handle on it because that is raw numbers before the, the economists and the politicians get a chance to tweak the numbers and adjust them.

And you know, I, I suppose the only manipulation that could happen there though is someone could be making a lot more money than they say they're making. You know, we're talking about the gross and the net income issue here, right? They could, they could, they could lie about the gross. Right? And, but that's, that's a pretty severe form of cheating because it's probably pretty easy to catch them.

Well, actually 90%, well, not 90% because 28% of the tax gap is non filing. So you take away the non filing 28 and the 10%, that is, I'm sorry, 28 billion, that's not 9%, I'm sorry. Anyway, but it's around say 80%, 85% is under reporting of various types. Now a large portion of that 76 billion, I think is under reporting of payroll tax that's mostly going to be illegal aliens. Now I happen to like the fair tax because it taxes illegal aliens at the full amount.

Now, now, now, now, now, John, you gotta, you gotta stop saying things like that on the show. You have to call them what Hillary calls them. They're workers without papers.

Yes, you're right, you're right. I'm sorry. Workers without papers.

We don't want to be politically incorrect here.

I just love political incorrectness.

I hope the listeners love my sarcasm.

You know, but yeah, the fair tax actually taxes illegal aliens at a higher rate because the fair tax untaxes poverty by issuing a prebate. They call it a prebate. It's a fancy name for a rebate at the first of the month. But the rebate is basically the amount that you would pay in taxes. If you were spending at the poverty level on new retail goods and services, that's the exact amount of tax you would pay. So if you're spending at that level, you get a prebate equal to what you pay at the cash register. Except if you're an illegal alien living at or near the poverty level, you don't get the prebate, so you pay the full 23%. Even Bill Gates and Warren Buffett wouldn't pay 23%. It would be 22.9999%.

Just hold on for a minute. I want to make sure I know where you're coming from. Like, what is your actual position here? Just so we kind of make sure we see that. It sounds like you're not in favor of flat tax and you're certainly not in favor of high taxes or what they call. Oddly, talk about, you know, renaming something progressive taxation. Okay. Which is really regressive. I mean, are you, are you saying national sales tax is the thing or what, what's your, what, what would be your ideal world?

Well, a national sales tax. A national sales tax that will untax poverty. Now that's, that's one of the problems with the sales tax is normally sales taxes are regressive because they hit the poor hardest. So when these economists created the fair tax, they said, well, let's implement something like the standard deduction, which even under a flat income tax, they keep the standard deduction, which makes it progressive. Well, they just said, let's implement this rebate system and we're going to give people a rebate up to the poverty level, which, so whether you're Bill Gates or your Joe Blow the Plumber or your, the guy on welfare, you get the prebate that's equal to your poverty level taxation. So you only pay taxes above the poverty level. So therefore someone spending at double the poverty level is paying tax at 11 and a half percent on new retail goods and services. Used products aren't taxed and tuition isn't taxed. So everything else, though is taxed at that 23% level. But since you get that prebate back, you don't. You don't. Your net tax is going to be for most people, somewhere around 8, 9, 10%. I actually have a fair tax calculator on my site. The rich don't pay tax.com if you go out to the blog or if you just go to the richdon'tpaytax.com calculator and there's a calculator there, you can put in the size of your family and the amount you spend on new retail goods and services in a year. And that's all it takes to calculate it. That's how simple it is. The government actually calculates your prebate that way and sends you the check. You buy groceries, gasoline, pay your rent, whatever. It all happens automatically. No form, no postcard. You don't even have to fill out a postcard.

Yeah, but, so, so here's the thing, you know, and I've thought long and hard about this Kind of concept of a, of a national sales tax. And, you know, my concern is, and I'm not saying I'm not in favor of the idea, but my concern is that, you know, so much of our economy is based on consumption. I mean, 72% of our GDP or something like that is consumption oriented. You know, will people stop consuming?

I don't really think so. I mean, where you, where you have states that have sales taxes and states that don't, the ones that have sales taxes and no income tax tend to do better than the ones that have income taxes and no sales taxes.

Okay, so Oregon and Washington being right next to each other are a good comparison. Talk more about that.

Okay. I'm not familiar with Oregon and Washington specifically.

So Washington state has no sales, no income tax, and Oregon has no sales tax. And so the people that live right at the border are in great shape because they live their residencies in Washington state, yet they go across the border to shop. They don't pay anything.

Well, now, here's one of the interesting things about implementing a national retail sales tax. They would be. All of those taxes would be collected at the state level, which would mean that the five states that don't collect a sales tax right now would be encouraged to switch their taxation method over to a sales tax method from an income tax. And because they're going to get a.25% of. Get to keep 0.25% of all the taxes that they collect and send into Washington. But this way, the IRS audits the states. The states audit about 25 million retail businesses or a portion of them, and nobody audits individual consumers. And I think that's a big win because that way, the only way an individual is going to get audited is if there's due process. They think you've committed a crime and they have evidence that'll stand up in court with, with the judge saying, yes, you've satisfied, you know, the evidentiary requirements.

All right, so let me tell you my calculation. I just went to your website and I did it and it says, estimate, you know, how many adults, how many children? Just me, no kids. Just a dog looking for a wife. Then I'll have kids. Okay, so estimate what you spend on new retail goods and services in a year. This is not income. Do not include purchases of used products, education, spending, or money put into savings and investment. Actually, you know what? Now that I put this here, because I'm sort of including what I spend in all my different businesses, I gotta increase this number. It's. It's actually definitely not high enough. But so I'm putting, I mean, this may sound ridiculous, but it's all my businesses, right? So $900,000, okay, so my fair tax would be 22.7% and that would mean I would pay $204,000 and change. Now I think that's a pretty good deal. I like this plan for me, I mean, that's less than I pay now, I'll tell you that.

Well, the reason is because when you get rid of the income tax, what's going to happen? You get rid of the corporate income tax. With no corporate income tax, the US Becomes a jobs magnet.

This counts what I spend in my businesses because I'd pay sales tax on all those things too, of course, right?

Anything that you. Any new retail goods or service of which you are the final consumer.

And so what about when I hire an accountant or a lawyer or some service provider? I got to pay tax on that too, right?

So sales tax, okay, the way, the way it is, if you are consuming a service, that person has to charge you a sales tax. So if you hire a plumber, if you hire an accountant, doesn't matter if you're consuming a service, they have to charge you a sales tax on the service. Now if you're buying something used though, like for example, you buy a house that's already been sold to somebody else, you no longer have that sales tax, but the sales tax on the new house.

Oh, but you got to pay a sales tax on a new home.

On a new home. What happens though is that everything drops in price. The lumber drops in price.

Well, that's true because it hasn't been taxed 200 times before it got to the market. That's what they did. You know, the loaf of bread, 200 taxes go into it before you buy it at the store. And so that's, that's true. All of that equalizes. But developers, it seems like their knee jerk reaction is they're going to hate this because no one's going to buy a new home. They're just going to trade used ones, right?

Well, actually the used. That's what I was getting ready to say. The used home suddenly becomes priced about the same because it's what they call the comps. If you go to a realtor and you get ready to buy a house, they're going to look at comps and that new house down the street is going to affect the price of the used one that you're looking at. So the person who buys the house, he'll pay the full tax on it. But when he sells it, he's going to recover some of that because the price of his house is going to be affected by houses, you know, a block away, two blocks away, five blocks away.

Oh, listen, I, I completely understand that the market forces always equalize things. They take a little time to do it. Maybe it's going to take a year or two for these things to all sort of reach homeostasis, as it were. But that's certainly true. But this is what nobody ever is willing to actually think about and understand. So it's pretty hard to sell some of these things because nobody really wants to think too much.

You know, one of the reasons that I'm writing my next book, the Tax Deception, is to, you know, lay this out about the fair tax. And I don't like the name fair tax. I don't think there is such a thing as a fair tax. But HR25 and S929 have been in Congress for some time. They were actually looked at, but not looked at back during the Bush administration. They said, oh well, we don't like the way this looks, so we're going to change our model. And then they said, oh well, the model doesn't work. Well, of course, the fair tax was designed by dozens of top economists and a bunch of politicians decided they didn't like what the economists said and they said, oh well, we're going to take care of this and eliminate that and do this other stuff and oh, now it doesn't work. Guess what?

Very interesting. Okay. What else do you want people to know?

Well, the next thing is that about the flat income tax. A flat income tax is actually going to hurt the middle class. I actually went out to HR 1824, which is the most likely to pass. It's actually got a, a version of it in the. Not 920. I was saying 929. 929 is the version of that one. The fair tax is 155. I'm sorry, in the, in the Senate, S 929 and HR 1824 have a $28,960 standard deduction. I included that. I also included standard deduction for two children at $6,000 each. Came out to 12,480, did all the tax calculations, came up with what they would pay. And then I looked at the CBO data. Now, I did this for a family earning $66,400, which is the absolute middle of the middle quintile According to the CBO that group currently pays tax at 11.1%. Under that version of the flat income tax, they would pay tax at a rate of 14% or a 26% tax increase from middle income earners. Then I did the same thing with the top quintile who currently pay tax, according to the CBO at 23.4%. I didn't include the two children in the deduction because most of those people are older, the children are out of the family. And so even tweaking it that way and trying to make it look worse for them, they get an 8.6% tax cut under that model, I think, yeah, the rich are paying too much. But swinging it so far towards the middle class, that's just, you know, adding insult to injury. It's just, you know, swinging the pendulum instead of actually fixing the problem. So if you're thinking about a flat tax, if you're in the middle class, you're in the middle quintile or the next of the top quintile, you're probably going to get hit harder than anybody else. The poor aren't going to get hit because they get all the deductions and don't pay any tax anyway.

Right, right. Very interesting. So I'd encourage all our listeners to go visit John's website. The rich don't pay tax dot com. You can go calculator and you'll see this really interesting calculator. It's pretty fascinating to do that and it only takes just a quick moment. So, John, good stuff. Thanks for coming on with us. This is an interesting topic. Of course.

Well, thank you for having me on, Jason.

I've never really thought of Jason as subversive, but I just found out that's what Wall street considers him to be.

Really? Now, how is that possible at all?

Simple. Wall street believes that real estate investors are dangerous to their schemes because the dirty truth about income property is that it actually works in real life.

I know. I mean, how many people do you know, not including insiders, who created wealth with stocks, bonds and mutual funds? Those options are for people who only want to pretend they're getting ahead.

Stocks and other non direct traded assets are a losing game for most people. The typical scenario is you make a little, you lose a little and spin your wheels for decades.

That's because the corporate crooks running the stock and bond investing game will always see to it that they win. This means unless you're one of them, you will not win.

And unluckily for Wall Street, Jason has a unique ability to make the everyday person understand investing the way it should be. He shows them a world where anything less than a 26% annual return is is disappointing.

Yep, and that's why Jason offers a one book set on creating wealth that comes with 20 digital download audios. He shows us how we can be excited about these scary times and exploit the incredible opportunities this present economy has afforded us.

We can pick local markets untouched by the economic downturn, exploit packaged commodities investing and achieve exceptional returns safely and securely.

I like how he teaches you how to protect the equity in your home before it disappears and how to outsource your debt obligations to the government.

And this set of advanced strategies for wealth creation is being offered for only $197.

To get your Creating Wealth Encyclopedia Book 1 complete with over 20 hours of audio, go to jasonhartman.com store if you.

Want to be able to sit back and collect checks every month. Just like a banker. Jason's Creating Wealth Encycloped series is for you. This show is produced by the Hartman Media Company. All rights reserved. For distribution or publication rights and media interviews, please visit www.hartmanmedia.com or email mediaartmanmedia.com Nothing on this show should be considered specific personal or professional advice. Please consult an appropriate tax, legal, real estate or business professional for individualized advice. Opinions of guests are their own and the host is acting on behalf of Platinum Properties Investor Network, Inc. Exclusively.